Shabir Ally: What Every Muslim Should Know about Crucifixion
4 comments:
Anonymous
said...
It is interesting to note that Shabir claims the resurrection accounts were later improvements on the story, yet the 1 Corinthians 15 early apostles creed has been dated to within 3 years of the crucifixion.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time,"
Are there other explanations other than an agenda to make sure Christ was resurrected? Yes there is.
shabbir is really loosing the battle against the cross of jesus and resurrection.if u hear his talk u can see how he is struggling to get away from the issue. i believe even he knows the truth yet is forced to spread lie just for the sake of his faith
To add to what keithtruth has said with regard to the resurrection: Shabir is in error when he says that translators tried to "turn the words away from the obvious meaning and camouflage the problem" with the rendering "some doubted" in Matthew 28:17. Here, Shabir makes a bold-faced assertion without backing it up. The Greek DOES say that some doubted. I provide the relevant data here with my comments in brackets:
BDAG - "2. in prose, where it makes a partition or distributes into parts: hO MEN ... hO DE, that ... this, the one ... the other...hOI DE [and/while some], stands as though hOI MEN [on the one hand/and they] had preceded, Mat 26:67, Matt. 28:17
NETBible; footnote to verse 17: The Greek text reads here hOI DE EDISTASAN. Some scholars argue that the article is functioning like a personal pronoun, thus “they doubted” (e.g., D. A. Hagner, Matthew [WBC], 2:884). If so, then all the disciples would be in view. The translation of the text takes hOI as an alternative pronoun which has a partitive notion (i.e., some of the disciples doubted, but not all). The difficulty with the personal pronoun view is that there are no examples of it in Matthew in which the same subject immediately precedes with its own verb (as would be the case in “they worshiped…they doubted”). Such, in fact, would be quite awkward, FOR THE ARTICLE WOULD BE UNNECESSARY SINCE THE PRONOMINAL REFERENT IS ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THE VERB [if the intended meaning was "they worshipped...they doubted," the b part of Matt. 28:17 would lack hOI and EDISTASAN would stand alone]. The only reason for the article here would be to distinguish the subject in some way; but if the same subject is in view, no distinction is being made.
My interest was peaked at the beginning of Shabir's talk, when I thought I was going to be hearing a Qur'anic explanation of the events in question (I even started jotting down Ayat so I could examine them later).
Unfortunately, the discussion turned solely to Shabir's reading of the Gospels. He left the Islamic position at "We don't know what happened, but that's OK", resting his discussion on negation.
Then, I was further disapointed that he didn't address crucifixion (as the title would imply) but focused on resurrection instead (somehow choosing not to acknowledge the plain fact that death by crucifixion falsifies the Qur'an). He chose to pass the burden of proof from one issue to another rather than address death by crucifixion.
4 comments:
It is interesting to note that Shabir claims the resurrection accounts were later improvements on the story, yet the 1 Corinthians 15 early apostles creed has been dated to within 3 years of the crucifixion.
"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5and that he appeared to Peter,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time,"
Are there other explanations other than an agenda to make sure Christ was resurrected? Yes there is.
shabbir is really loosing the battle against the cross of jesus and resurrection.if u hear his talk u can see how he is struggling to get away from the issue.
i believe even he knows the truth yet is forced to spread lie just for the sake of his faith
To add to what keithtruth has said with regard to the resurrection: Shabir is in error when he says that translators tried to "turn the words away from the obvious meaning and camouflage the problem" with the rendering "some doubted" in Matthew 28:17. Here, Shabir makes a bold-faced assertion without backing it up. The Greek DOES say that some doubted. I provide the relevant data here with my comments in brackets:
BDAG - "2. in prose, where it makes a partition or distributes into parts: hO MEN ... hO DE, that ... this, the one ... the other...hOI DE [and/while some], stands as though hOI MEN [on the one hand/and they] had preceded, Mat 26:67, Matt. 28:17
NETBible; footnote to verse 17: The Greek text reads here hOI DE EDISTASAN. Some scholars argue that the article is functioning like a personal pronoun, thus “they doubted” (e.g., D. A. Hagner, Matthew [WBC], 2:884). If so, then all the disciples would be in view. The translation of the text takes hOI as an alternative pronoun which has a partitive notion (i.e., some of the disciples doubted, but not all). The difficulty with the personal pronoun view is that there are no examples of it in Matthew in which the same subject immediately precedes with its own verb (as would be the case in “they worshiped…they doubted”). Such, in fact, would be quite awkward, FOR THE ARTICLE WOULD BE UNNECESSARY SINCE THE PRONOMINAL REFERENT IS ALREADY EMBEDDED IN THE VERB [if the intended meaning was "they worshipped...they doubted," the b part of Matt. 28:17 would lack hOI and EDISTASAN would stand alone]. The only reason for the article here would be to distinguish the subject in some way; but if the same subject is in view, no distinction is being made.
My interest was peaked at the beginning of Shabir's talk, when I thought I was going to be hearing a Qur'anic explanation of the events in question (I even started jotting down Ayat so I could examine them later).
Unfortunately, the discussion turned solely to Shabir's reading of the Gospels. He left the Islamic position at "We don't know what happened, but that's OK", resting his discussion on negation.
Then, I was further disapointed that he didn't address crucifixion (as the title would imply) but focused on resurrection instead (somehow choosing not to acknowledge the plain fact that death by crucifixion falsifies the Qur'an). He chose to pass the burden of proof from one issue to another rather than address death by crucifixion.
Post a Comment